On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think we should remove the xine backend from the archive
> - it is completely abandoned upstream
> - it is broken for amarok users
> - it is buggy
> - it is installed by default in stable, so users won't automaticalyl get
> migrat
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM, George Kiagiadakis
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Praveen A wrote:
>> 2011/9/23 Fathi Boudra :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I created a wiki page with the details:
>>> http://wiki.debian.org/QtMultiarchTransition
&g
Hi,
I created a wiki page with the details:
http://wiki.debian.org/QtMultiarchTransition
What I don't know yet is how to proceed from there?
Obviously coordination is required whatever the plan is.
It worths mentioning that current Qt in Sid fails to build on IA64 architecture.
We could upload Qt
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Hector Oron wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> DebConf sponsorship team is looking after Qt@Nokia Community Sponsorship [1],
> for such purpose a project template has been filed in at their wiki site [2].
>
> I would like to ping you, as you might know better fac
> Fabo, do you know when is Qt 4.7 being released? :) I have not idea about
> approx dates and we need them if we are about to tell our plans to the
> release team. Actually, it might be a good idea to handle this separately?
We could expect Qt 4.7.0 being released on 1st week of September .
Chee
What about KDE 4.5 on top of Qt 4.7 ? :)
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
> so I plan to be done with Git conversion of kde-{sc,req,std},attic by
> tomorrow. I'll do krap a bit later, I won't do kde-extras.
I'll take care of kde-extras migration.
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Hi,
Welcome. Account created.
Cheers,
Fathi
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I think this is up to kde-extras people. And if KDE extras people want to stay
> parted in svn and git, I think that should also be allowed.
I disagree on this point. I want to reduce the workload, not increasing it.
We have already some fra
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Mark Purcell wrote:
> Seems like a lot of options and moving parts for the maintenance of
> kde-extras packages.
> In kde-extras we generally have new upstream releases with sometimes a
> handful of Debian specific patches, sometimes pulling something early from
> Do we move all of kde-extras to git too?
yes
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
> Like official KDE modules, those will have to be done one by one when somebody
> has time. Hopefully migration process won't have too many caveats and will be
> polished during migration of official KDE packaging so anybody could do it for
> krap/extras. qt4-x11.git migration was not very smooth
> My only request is that we document the workflow in something like:
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-kde/kde-extras/README
>
> This is so we can get the workflow documented and give those of us git
> newbies over the line.
Qt contains a README.source:
http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-kde/qt4-x11.gi
Hi,
> 1) We would use the same workflow as for qt4-x11.git, i.e. no upstream branch.
> It proved to be fine, didn't it? Fathi, you worked most with qt4-x11.git, is
> there anything you would like to be changed?
nothing to change, I like the workflow we have with Qt.
> Secondary motivation is tha
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> After long considerations, I'm considering dropping the debian menu from being
> shown by default.
>
> Any comments ?
for the record, +1 from me.
I fail to see the added value and never used it.
Fathi
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mail
Hi all,
As Sune: I'm fine for the tar.bz2 tarball but I need a closer look to
dpkg-source format 3.0.
cheers,
Fathi
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
It's worth mentionning Qt 4.5.x doesn't support GCC 4.4 [1].
Qt 4.6 will add GCC 4.4 support.
[1] Qt breaks strict aliasing rules resulting in memory corruption and
miscompilation.
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
> rename kdebase metapackage to kdebase-apps
> introduce a new kdebase metapackage that is more or less equivalent to kde3
> kdebase metapackage
+1 too
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
KDE follows a 6 months cycle release.
Qt 4.6 should be released by the end of 2009 or early 2010.
imho, some people will try to push KDE 4.4 dependency on Qt 4.6.
for Debian stable, I think releasing with Qt 4.6.0/KDE 4.4.0 is a very bad idea.
bugfix/patch release is preferred and according to th
> Well I ask on irc but noone answered. My reasoning was that upstream also
> renamed the package. And I prefer to stay with upstream's naming if possible.
ping me harder if I'm in the Uploaders list :)
As you said on IRC, you don't mind changing the name, I'll go back to
simply kdebluetooth.
> F
> I don't understand why you named the package kdebluetooth ?
s/kdebluetooth/kdebluetooth4
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Hi Michael,
On Saturday 18 July 2009 13:17:04 Archive Administrator wrote:
> (new) kdebluetooth4_0.3-1.diff.gz optional net
> (new) kdebluetooth4_0.3-1.dsc optional net
> (new) kdebluetooth4_0.3-1_amd64.deb optional net
> KDE Bluetooth Framework
> The KDE Bluetooth Framework is a set of tools bui
Hi,
very late reply but QPrinter needs love.
ask Pino Toscano (okular), I guess he has many things to say about it.
cheers,
Fathi
On Monday 15 June 2009 19:12:44 Ana Guerrero wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Knut Yrvin -
>
> From: Knut Yrvin
> Organization: Qt Software
> Reply-To: Kn
> How has this matter been handled so far?
at least, we're ~4 regular sponsors.
> There are a number of non-DD members here.
> How do they get their packages uploaded?
poking on irc, which is bad (imho).
> Do they all have a DD as co-maintainer?
most of KDE extras packages have:
- Debian KDE E
> I'm not even subscribed there ? What goes over -talk that doesn't fit onto
> -devel ?
from http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/qtkde.html
If you want to discuss development/packaging questions with us,
come around in #debian-qt-kde on OFTC, or mail
pkg-kde-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org.
pkg-kde-ta
Welcome
> I will do that, thanks.
Added.
> Well, This is what Sune Vuorela wrote after I suggested this on
> -mentors in :
> Who is right ?
We had a discussion on the subject and disagree as you can see.
We didn't reached a consensus about sponsors requests handling
done for Qt/KDE/KDE-extras p
> Another option seems to be to patch Qt. Upstream did it this way:
> http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qt/commit/5299240db14579960358edeebfc72fcef905af13
I merged this changes.
Next upload will provide phonon built from Qt sources.
cheers,
Fathi
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-
Hi,
> I've noticed that kdevplatform and kdevelop-data for kde4 is in
> debian-experimental, but kdevelop4 only has amd64 builds. Is there any
> reason why there is no i386 build?
The appropriate mailing list for this kind of question is debian-kde.
By the way, you are wrong:
kdevplatform1-libs |
> kde-thirdparty
/me prefers kde-extras
cheers,
Fathi
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Hi,
kdevplatform and kdevelop are the last missing KDE4 modules in Sid.
kdevplatform is waiting in NEW since a month and we are waiting it before
uploading kdevelop.
could you take a look at it please ? TIA.
cheers,
Fathi
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
> Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Hi,
we could probably fix this minor issue:
1) without insulting people:
08:57 < pusling> but ehm. whoever acked the kdevplatform package as it
is now should really learn about library packaging before actually
uploading new libraries and ask for a rejection of kdevplatform until
done so.
2) wit
Hi Jeremy :)
> Author: sharky
> Date: 2009-02-24 06:53:08 + (Tue, 24 Feb 2009)
> New Revision: 13871
>
> Modified:
>branches/kde4/packages/kdevplatform/debian/kdevplatform-dev.install
>branches/kde4/packages/kdevplatform/debian/rules
> Log:
> fix
kdevplatform up-to-date stuff is in tr
Hi,
> after noticing a git archive for kde-extra too, I wonder how/when to use
> svn/git. Is there an idea or is it more personal preference? If the plan is
> to migrate I would suggest to use git for KDE4 stuff.
>
> Comments anyone?
sorry to reply 2 weeks later.
I didn't know some kde-extras pa
On Friday 09 January 2009 17:18:42 Ana Guerrero wrote:
> I hope the website is a bit clearer now. Still have to update the
> instructions for lenny.
done.
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Hi,
IMHO, it's too late to change things now for Lenny. But I guess, we'll need to
re-discuss the situation after Lenny release for KDE 4 series.
Especially when I read this:
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/3416
and the nice screenshot here:
http://en.opensuse.org/Image:OS11.0beta1-inst7.png
Thanks. commited, uploaded.
strigi (0.5.11-2) unstable; urgency=low
* Add 02_strigi_branch_r872482.diff patch:
- install header indexpluginloader.h
* Update debian/libstreamanalyzer-dev.install:
- install header indexpluginloader.h
* Add 03_fix_ftbfs_with_gcc_4.4_bug505624.diff patch:
> Here's a patch to add the status action to KDM's init script.
Thanks. commited.
cheers,
Fathi
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
first, Sune doesn't have opinion about it.
> Problem: how are you convince people doing the hand-reviews this is a
> needed fix?
what's the point to have kdelibs/kdepimlibs/kdebase-runtime in Lenny ?
=> IMHO, to have some KDE 4 applications running and to be able to
develop/build some KDE 4 appl
Hi,
on r11881, I have updated kross to version 11, needed to build latest
kdevplatform and kdevelop4 (See also Debian bug #491272).
IMHO, it could be nice to have this version in Lenny.
opinions ?
cheers,
Fathi
--
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Hi,
IMHO, I prefer dch multimaintainer mode implementation.
by the way, we can start to use this scheme manually, no need to wait for dch
changes.
package (1.2.3-4) experimental; urgency=low
[ Joe User ]
* doing foo
* doing bar
[ Jane Hacker ]
* Something third
* Something fourth
> You can be assured that with corporate users, the decision process about IT
> deployments is more sophisticated than "let's take this Linux CD, click
> on 'Desktop', and see what happens".
>
We don't have only corporate users. By the way, some IT deployments are
"let's use default not more".
I
Hi,
Maybe a bit late in the talk. Well, I'll express my opinion anyway ;)
stable users deserve a stable, well tested, rock solid KDE desktop.
KDE 4.1 is fine for power users and early KDE 4 adopters.
It contains some minor glitches and is not a complete KDE3 replacement yet.
Despite the fact tha
43 matches
Mail list logo
